Is it at viability? 30 Weeks? Birth? The age of 2? When is a human a human? Isn't it simpler just to say at fertilization?

It's hilarious how I have a birth control ad on this meme

Oof

Agree with whom?

Oh, wait; get it! Because pro-choices who agree on when human life begins are rare!

I would go further and say they don't even exist, lol.

The debate isn't about life or humanity, but personhood and when rights begin. There is no doubt that life begins at conception; that is taught in most every biology text book. And there is no doubt that the life in the womb is human. When "inalienable rights" kick in is the sticking point. When does this fetus actually become a person that has rights? That is the question. The multifaceted view of what constitutes a person stems from neural development of the fetus and when it can experience and record life.

Interesting that it was never really questioned until abortion became "a right" now only one side agrees and we don't resort to ambiguous terminology to justify when it should be allowed to kill our offspring.

So you're obviously someone that believes that "personhood" and "inalienable rights" begin at conception. There are many who believe personhood begins when neural activity starts, claiming that a person must be capable of thought or experience. What is your basis for claiming that a fertilized egg is a person deserving of rights?

What do you mean exactly by "experience and record life"

There comes a point in the life of the embryo and fetus where the brain is developed enough to not only experience life, but record it, memory. The technology that measures this is new and still rudimentary, but brain activity occurs much earlier than previously thought.

Good point, thanks for clarifying. So basically brain activity determines personhood and the right to live?

Brain activity is a point some argue for, but others say it's a person from the time of conception based on largely religious convictions, stating that it's a person at an early stage of development. People take a variety of positions between conception and birth, which is why this debate never really goes anywhere. If you can get someone you're debating to, at a minimum, define what a person is and when this occurs, you can save a lot of pointless gibberish.

So I'll ask you then to prevent pointless gibberish: what is a person and when does personhood begin? ( even though your answer will be different from the next person I talk to, except a pro-lifer, which is exactly my point)

Pro-lifers fall into all these spectrums as well. Assuming pro-lifers only believe that personhood starts at conception is patently false. Many pro-lifers believe personhood starts at the beginning of neural activity, even though they accept life as beginning at conception. Timber1972 takes the position that it is a person from the moment fertilization begins. Just like all pro-choicers don't advocate the extreme version of this debate, pro-lifers don't just occupy the opposite extreme. I think most people, pro-lifers and pro-choice, fall into the same belief (70% if I remember correctly) that the fetus shouldn't be aborted after the first tri-mester. The two groups have more in common than you think if you care enough to talk and listen to the other side.

For myself, I believe that personhood comes down to purpose and intent. On the left leaning side of the argument, the purpose is assigned by the parent. For instance; a woman gets pregnant and decides she doesn't want the baby, because of accident, rape or some other reason. She then aborts the baby, and the law condones it, because she has that choice. Now, the same woman decides to keep the baby, for her own reasons and purposes. Now the law considers that baby a person and is obligated to protect it. Nothing changed from the baby's perspective other than the mother making a decision to keep it. That decision warranted the right to life on that new person.

Same woman walking home after making her decision to keep the baby, encounters a mugger who beats her and takes her money...the baby dies in the process. The law now (in most states) has two charges for the mugger, assault for the mother and manslaughter for the baby...all because she bestowed personhood on it by choosing to keep it. So, the baby's rights and personhood hinge on purpose and intent, not from itself, but from the mother.

For those on the right of this issue, purpose and intent, are also at play. The difference being that the purpose and intent are coming from both the parent(s) and another being, God. Everything has a purpose, no matter how small or large, and if God has ordained a purpose for this fertilized egg, e.g. the right to grow into a baby and eventually an adult, then, as this side proposes, the embryo deserves the same protections as any other human.

That's an oversimplified view of the argument, I know, but it's hard to put all the scenarios into a meme post.

I'm all too willing to talk to the other side so I'm glad you're here to discuss with me:)

70% eh? That's news to me. News flash but any pro-lifer who says abortions should be allowed at any point in a pregnancy is a pro-choicer, not a pro-lifer.

And really? Personhood depends on a woman's thoughts?